Why can't Iran have nuclear power?

[Oleg Bach]

Praised/Condemned isn't really doing something, it's saying something.

I'm talking about sanctions/ending trade agreements/ stopping the sale of weapons/military retribution - something.

Never will I forget the one conversation I had with a Canadian arms dealer....I said your gold plated taps are generated by blood money...he retorted and said " I saved lives" - how I asked? - he replied "I armed both sides" refering to Iran and Iraq...You will never stop weapons sales...they are right up there with oil....If we had the will - to denouce greed - then we would have insisted that America invade Saudi Arabia - the ones that put up the money for 9 11 ...but no -- The deversion of Iraq and Afghanistan was created to protect the evil money grubbing princes of Saudi - money talks - it has no moral fibre.

[DogOnPorch]

That is a good point. But again, we are talking about energy, and not weapons.

Here's a wee reminder re: energy & weapons.

---------------------------------

Ho-Ho-Ho...Green Giant.

[segnosaur]

Hmm, I can't get your link to work or find admission of Iran, or anything official saying that they were in breach.

However, for the sake of argument - let's say that you are right.

My apologies for posting a non-functional link. (Although someone else was kind enough to post a functional one to the same document.)

Given the circumstances, you can understand why Iran would not be completely forward. Israel took out similar reactors in Iraq,

Yes they did. Of course, at the time there were issues that IAEA was not providing adequate inspections, and following the 90s gulf war, all sorts of violations were found.

Strangely enough, Canada, France, Sweden, etc., all countries that have no intentions of military conquest or human rights abuses, don't seem to have the same problems with the IAEA.

More recently, Israel asked the US for permission to make a strike on Iran's facilities.

Pretty much irrelevant... Iran's violations go back decades, while Israel's desire to attack Iran's facilities is a much more recent development.

This of course, is the country that built weapons secretly, and continues to lie to the world about their existence

The difference is, Israel never signed on to the NPT.

So, you believe that because Iran has a lot of oil, then they shouldn't need nuclear energy, and developing it, is just a cover for developing nuclear weapons? Don't you think that even if they have oil, they might want other sources of energy, or might want to save their oil to sell to other countries?

Yes, they might have that as their plan. But given past violations of the NPT, any actions they take should be under tight scrutiny.

I see. So you think that another nation should do the enrichment, so that Iran has the same fuel, but does not have the technology or capacity to divert it to weapons? Well, the problem with that, is that Iran does not have control of its own resources then.

That would be, at most, a minor inconvenience. Other countries manage to run nuclear plans without doing their own enrichment.

Particularly at a time when the nations of the world are all threatening sanctions against them - does it make sense to put the country's energy in the hands of someone who could just decide to strip it from you on a whim? Would Canada want France to give us our enriched uranium or would we want to have that control ourselves?

And just why do you think that the nations of the world are threatening sanctions? Could it be because they've violated the NPT in the past?

Suggesting that Iran should be able to enrich its own uranium because of sanctions is a little like a convicted criminal claiming he should have the right to steal because his criminal record reduces his chance of finding a job.

The NPT actually suggests that the nuclear countries are supposed to help the non-nuclear countries acquire energy, in exchange for not developing weapons. In the case of Iran, they have not only not helped, but they have actually done everything possible to deny them.

Actually, earlier on (especially before the revolution) the U.S. actually helped Iran's nuclear program, building test reactors, and offering to help with enrichment technology.

http://www.rertr.anl.gov/FRRSNF/EISREACT.html

These are reasonable compromises - as long as those nations do not look to exploit the situation and as long as Iran has full control over its nuclear energy, such that no nation can arbitrarily take it away.

There are multiple countries in the world. Assuming Iran actually cooperated with the IAEA (that's a big assumption... apologists like you aside), it would be able to purchase fuel from several suppliers. And if it went with something like the CANDU design, it would not need enrichment at all.

[segnosaur]

It still doesn't say that they are in violation.

I guess I assumed that if they were in violation, then the IAEA would come out and make a statement to that effect.

Your quote shows that they aren't willing to agree to the voluntary snap inspections to demonstrate that they are in compliance.

For instance, if I get pulled over for a suspected DUI, and I refuse the breathalyzer, that does not mean that I am a drunk driver, it means that I am not cooperating to demonstrate that I am not a drunk driver.

I know it seems picky, but it is an important distinction.

Except the 'rules of the road' probably require that you submit to a breathalizer. Even if you don't get convicted of DUI, you'd still be liable for non-cooperation with the police.

Similarly, the rules of the NPT and the IAEA are supposed to allow surprise inspections. If Iran is denying those inspections, they ARE violating the rules.

[Wild Bill]

Praised/Condemned isn't really doing something, it's saying something.

I'm talking about sanctions/ending trade agreements/ stopping the sale of weapons/military retribution - something.

Even if you win your argument it really doesn't matter. If Iran gains nuclear power and along with it the capability to make nuclear weapons then it would put Israel in the position of a cornered rat!

If they didn't launch a preventive attack on Iran then they would be fools.

You appear to be supporting such a thing happening. Do you really think Israel could dare to just sit there and wait to see what would happen?

[wulf42]

Iran, as you know, wants to have nuclear power, and has taken steps in that direction.

Much of the rest of the world is trying to stop them, despite the fact that Iran has given many assurances that they are not going to build nuclear weapons with the technology.

Does the world have the right to try to stop them. Should they stop them? On what grounds?

Well lets see they see....hummmm??

-they are Islamic fanatics.

-they want to wipe Israel off the map.

-they support terrorism and will supply Nukes to said terrorist's.

-Will bring the world even closer to all out Nuclear war and WW3 than we already are.

-Will start an arms race in the Middle east.

-Force Israel to use Nuclear weapons on them.

-Will make the whole region even more unstable.

Yeah Iran going nuclear sounds like a good idea..........lol.

give me a break already!

I think the world is in enough danger already!

http://www.arabisto.com/article.cfm?articleID=28363

Edited January 17, 2009 by wulf42

[IranianPride]

Iran has NOT violated the NPT and has no nuclear weapons program.

"Iran has no nuclear weapons program"

http://slashnews.co.uk/index.php?id=708

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that Iran is not developing any nuclear weapons program and that the issue of Iran’s nuclear file must be resolved diplomatically to avoid going through a similar bitter experience like Iraq, Al Asharq al-Awsat reported on Saturday.

“Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing which could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives,” ElBaradei said.

When asked about the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program that is expected to be issued next month, ElBaradei told the daily, “We have actually started compiling the report and it will be ready at the specified time before the Board of Governors meeting. So far, nothing new has surfaced, and we still call on Iran to help resolve the outstanding issues. In order to resolve the problem we have asked them to suspend the enrichment of uranium as a confidence-building measure, and we are still negotiating.”

ElBaradei noted that it was too early to consider referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council.

Worst-case scenario

He, moreover, stated that referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council for violating the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would be the worst-case scenario.

“We hope we will not have to adopt obligatory measures (about Iran) and also prefer not to make judgments about Iran withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he told the paper.

“Our findings in Iraq proved that the agency was right because we didn’t find anything which indicated the presence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. “If we want to take a lesson from Iraq, we should not rush before all realities are clarified, and this is what we want to do about Iran.”

In September 18, the IAEA adopted a tough resolution demanding Iran to halt its all enrichment-related activities. The IAEA Board is set to meet again on November 25.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/2...an-nuclear.html

New findings by the U.N. atomic agency appear to strengthen Iran's claim it has not enriched uranium domestically and weaken U.S. arguments that the country is hiding a nuclear weapons program, diplomats said Tuesday. The diplomats, who are familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier, told The Associated Press that the International Atomic Energy Agency has established that at least some enriched particles found in Iran originated in Pakistan. The origin of hundreds of other samples has not been established. Still, the findings bolster Tehran's assertion that all such traces were inadvertently imported on "contaminated" equipment it bought on the black market.

Iran's energy consumption growth is outpacing its oil production growth. If production were to remain the same as today, Iran's domestic consumption would outgrow its production by 2010, meaning no more oil available for export, and for a country sorely dependant on oil exports for money, complete economic disaster. [/b]

Iran's energy consumption is exploding (7-8% a year), it needs more energy production:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Iran

Iran is building significant new generation capacity -- both thermal and hydroelectric -- with the goal of adding 30 GW over the next ten years (Iran estimates that it may need 90 GW of power generating capacity by 2020). Currently, the largest hydropower projects are the 3,000-megawatt (MW) Karun 3 plant, the 2,000-MW Godar-e Landar facility, and a 1,000-MW station in Upper Gorvand. New thermal projects include two 1,040-MW combined cycle plants in the South, an 1,100-MW combined cycle plant at Arak, and a 1,000-MW facility in Bandar Abbas. In May 2004, a 494-MW, gas-fired power plant was inaugurated in Abadan. Also in May 2004, a large wind power plant at Binaloud in Khorasan province began to come online, with Iran hoping to increase wind power capacity to 60 MW by the end of 2004. In June 2004, Iran's first geothermal plant, in the northwestern province of Ardebil, came online, with an initial power generating capacity of 2 MW (expandable to 100 MW).

While there is no ceiling in its future potential need for energy, there is a ceiling on oil production.

Iran's population is young and growing fast. The median age in Iran is 20, and it's forecast it's population will grow from nearly 70 million to over 105 million by 2050.

Unless you forget, oil is a non-renewable resource, and Iran needs to save as much as it can as it relies almost exclusively on oil for export revenue.

Here is the official Iranian view on the nuclear crisis issue:

http://www.iran-embassy.dk/fa/political/nu...r%20program.pdf

An Unnecessary Crisis - Setting the Record Straight about Iran’s Nuclear Program

ByThe Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations -New York

Published: November 2005

In a region already suffering from upheaval and uncertainty, a crisis is being manufactured in which there will be no winners. Worse yet, the hysteria about the dangers of an alleged Iran nuclear weapon program rest solely and intentionally on misperceptions and outright lies. In the avalanche of anti-Iran media commentaries, conspicuously absent is any reference to important facts, coupled with a twisted representation of the developments over the past 25 years. Before the international community is lead to another “crisis of choice”, it is imperative that the public knows all the facts and is empowered to make an informed and sober decision about an impending catastrophe.

***

2. Nuclear Technology OR Nuclear Weapons?

A vicious cycle of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program and attempts by Iran to circumvent them through concealment and black market acquisitions have fueled mutual suspicions. In this self-perpetuating atmosphere, the conclusion is already drawn that Iran’s declared peaceful nuclear program is just a cover for developing atomic weapons. But this conclusion is based on two erroneous assumptions, which have been repeated often enough to become conventional wisdom.

2.1- Iran Needs Nuclear Energy

2.1.1. Nuclear Energy for an Oil-Rich Country

The first is that Iran has vast oil and gas resources and therefore does not need nuclear energy. Although it is true that Iran is rich in oil and gas, these resources are finite and, given the pace of Iran's economic development, they will be depleted within two to five decades. With a territory of 1,648,000 km2 and a population of about 70 million, projected to be more than 105 million in 2050, Iran has no choice but to seek access to more diversified and secure sources of energy. Availability of electricity to 46,000 villages now, compared to 4400 twenty five years ago, just as an example, demonstrates the fast growing demand for more energy. And the youthfulness of the Iranian population, with around 70% under 30, doesn’t allow complacency when it comes to energy policy. To satisfy such growing demands, Iran can’t rely exclusively on fossil energy. Since Iranian national economy is still dependant on oil revenue, it can’t allow the ever increasing domestic demand affect the oil revenues from the oil export.

2.1.2. US Support for Iranian Nuclear Program

Iran’s quest for nuclear energy picked momentum following a study in 1974 carried out by the prestigious US-based Stanford Research Institute, which predicted Iran’s need for nuclear energy and recommended the building of nuclear plants capable of generating 20,000 megawatts of electricity before 1994. Now, 30 years later, Iran aims at reaching that level by 2020, which may save Iran 190 million barrels of crude oil or $10 billion per year in today’s prices.

Therefore, Iran’s nuclear program is neither ambitious nor economically unjustifiable. Diversification — including the development of nuclear energy — is the only sound and responsible energy strategy for Iran.

Even the US State Department was convinced of this in 1978 when it stated in a memo that the U.S. was encouraged by Iran's efforts to expand its non-oil energy base and was hopeful that the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement would be concluded soon and that U.S. companies would be able to play a role in Iran's nuclear energy projects.

2.1.3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Producing fuel for its nuclear power plants is an integral part of Iran’s nuclear energy policy. While domestic production of fuel for this number of nuclear power plants makesperfect economic sense, Iran’s decision should not be judged solely on economic grounds. Having been a victim of a pattern of deprivation from peaceful nuclear material and technology, Iran cannot solely rely on procurement of fuel from outside sources. Such dependence would in effect hold Iran’s multi-billion dollar investment in power plants hostage to the political whims of suppliers in a tightly controlled market. Furthermore, it is self evident that the time-consuming efforts to gain the necessary technology and develop the capability for fuel production must proceed simultaneously with the acquisition and construction of nuclear power plants. Otherwise constructed plans may become obsolete in case of denial of fuel without a contingency capacity to produce it domestically.

2.2. Iran Does Not Need Nuclear Weapons for Its Security

The second false assumption is that because Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapons in all directions — the U.S., Russia, Pakistan and Israel — any sound Iranian strategists must be seeking to develop a nuclear deterrent capability for Iran as well.

It is true that Iran has neighbors with abundant nuclear weapons, but this does not mean that Iran must follow suit. In fact, the predominant view among Iranian decision-makers is that development, acquisition or possession of nuclear weapons would only undermine Iranian security. Viable security for Iran can be attained only through inclusion and regional and global engagement. Iran’s history is the perfect illustration of its geo-strategic outlook. Over the past 250 years, Iran has not waged a single war of aggression against its neighbors, nor has it initiated any hostilities.

Iran today is the strongest country in its immediate neighborhood. It does not need nuclear weapons to protect its regional interests. In fact, to augment Iranian influence in the region, it has been necessary for Iran to win the confidence of its neighbors, who have historically been concerned with size andpower disparities.

On the other hand, Iran, with its current state of technological development and military capability, cannot reasonably rely on nuclear deterrence against its adversaries in the international arena or in the wider region of the Middle East. Moreover, such an unrealistic option would be prohibitively expensive, draining the limited economic resources of the country. In sum, a costly nuclear-weapon option would reduce Iran's regional influence and increase its global vulnerabilities without providing any credible deterrence.

There is also a fundamental ideological objection to weapons of mass destruction, including a religious decree issued by the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran prohibiting the development, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons.

[Wild Bill]

Iran has NOT violated the NPT and has no nuclear weapons program.

Did the Prime Minister of Iran generate this report during the time warp he experienced when the aliens visited him during his address to the UN some years ago?

I agree that the average citizen of Iran may be as truthful and rational as any of any other country but as far as their rulers go if they told me the time of day I would get a second opinion.

[M.Dancer]

I think before we worry about how to alllown Iran to have nuckear power we should worry about how we will help Iran accept 19th century standards of civilized behavior...I relaize that a 4 century jump is a lot. but I have every confidence in Iranians, I know they can do it.

[IranianPride]

Did the Prime Minister of Iran generate this report during the time warp he experienced when the aliens visited him during his address to the UN some years ago?

I don't know mate, did you hear that Iran can't be trusted in the latest 'pray for Armagaddon' Evangelical conference:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/...n_b_103161.html

Pastor Hagee is big with the US political elite:

http://mnweekly.ru/world/20071206/55295032.html

Praying for Armageddon

We want you to recognize that Iran is a clear and present danger to the United States of America and Israel. And... that it's time for our country to consider a military pre-emptive strike against Iran if they will not yield to diplomacy," says Pastor John Hagee, a popular television preacher and head of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), an organization that he founded in February 2006.

That was said, of all places, on the steps of the Capitol during a Christian Zionist summit in July 2007. Among some 4,500 listeners, there were prominent representatives of the U.S. ruling elite: on the Republican side, presidential candidate John McCain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Republican House majority leader Tom DeLay; among the Democrats, Senator Joseph Lieberman was in attendance. Israel was represented at the rally by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

PS, it's the president, not the prime minister in Iran.

Dancer,

I think before we worry about how to alllown Iran to have nuckear power we should worry about how we will help Iran accept 19th century standards of civilized behavior..

I think before we worry about Iran, we should worry about how a nation with 2nd century AD tribal notions of God giving them the land has 200 thermonuclear warheads.

A nation that has tens of thousands of sayanim in the western world doing God knows what for their tribal ideology.

Edited January 17, 2009 by IranianPride

[Wild Bill]

I don't know mate, did you hear that Iran can't be trusted in the latest 'pray for Armagaddon' Evangelical conference:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/...n_b_103161.html

Pastor Hagee is big with the US political elite:

http://mnweekly.ru/world/20071206/55295032.html

Praying for Armageddon

We want you to recognize that Iran is a clear and present danger to the United States of America and Israel. And... that it's time for our country to consider a military pre-emptive strike against Iran if they will not yield to diplomacy," says Pastor John Hagee, a popular television preacher and head of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), an organization that he founded in February 2006.

That was said, of all places, on the steps of the Capitol during a Christian Zionist summit in July 2007. Among some 4,500 listeners, there were prominent representatives of the U.S. ruling elite: on the Republican side, presidential candidate John McCain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Republican House majority leader Tom DeLay; among the Democrats, Senator Joseph Lieberman was in attendance. Israel was represented at the rally by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

PS, it's the president, not the prime minister in Iran.

Dancer,

I think before we worry about Iran, we should worry about how a nation with 2nd century AD tribal notions of God giving them the land has 200 thermonuclear warheads.

A nation that has tens of thousands of sayanim in the western world doing God knows what for their tribal ideology.

I see. So instead of answering my point you give us "Some other guy is nuts too!"

Then you point out the reference was to a president and not a prime minister, picking apart my model and not my point.

Hey, if that's not good reason for me to change my POV I don't know what is...not!

[IranianPride]

I see. So instead of answering my point you give us "Some other guy is nuts too!"

Then you point out the reference was to a president and not a prime minister, picking apart my model and not my point.

Hey, if that's not good reason for me to change my POV I don't know what is...not!

My point about him being the president was a side-point, a PS, not a counter-argument.

As far as whether he's nuts, my point is that if there are nuts guiding the Christian Right/Israel lobby wing of the Republican party, and they seem to be able to use nuclear technology responsibly, then there's no reason Iran can't.

Edited January 18, 2009 by IranianPride

[jbg]

Much of the rest of the world is trying to stop them, despite the fact that Iran has given many assurances that they are not going to build nuclear weapons with the technology.

Trust a bunch of maniacal mullahs with figurehead Ahmenajad (I'm a dinner jacket). Sounds like a plan.

[dub]

iran is not violating the NPT. please correct me if i'm wrong, but neither the IAEA or the UN have declared that iran is violating the NPT.

is it okay for israel, who has in numerous times threatened to attack iran, to have nuclear weapons? it's not like they're known for not attacking other countries. they are seen by all neighbours as a real military threat to the region.

has iran attacked any country in the past century? all they've been in engaged in was a self-defense war when iraq, with the backing of the U.S., attacked iran.

if iran does end up with nuclear weapons, it would be in violation of the NPT. would it make it okay if they pull out of the NPT? kind of like india, pakistan and of course, israel?

[DogOnPorch]

iran is not violating the NPT. please correct me if i'm wrong, but neither the IAEA or the UN have declared that iran is violating the NPT.

is it okay for israel, who has in numerous times threatened to attack iran, to have nuclear weapons? it's not like they're known for not attacking other countries. they are seen by all neighbours as a real military threat to the region.

has iran attacked any country in the past century? all they've been in engaged in was a self-defense war when iraq, with the backing of the U.S., attacked iran.

if iran does end up with nuclear weapons, it would be in violation of the NPT. would it make it okay if they pull out of the NPT? kind of like india, pakistan and of course, israel?

Iran attacked the US in 1979 by taking the US embassy and holding over 50 people hostage for well over 400 days. The looming figure of Ronald Reagan taking office was the only thing that stopped it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

In recent times, Iran has never really been trusted by the West w/o the Shah in power. The Shah was put onto the throne in 1941 to replace his pro-Nazi father. Stalin and Churchill did the job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah_Pahlavi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

----------------------------------------

Would His Highness kindly abdicate in favour of his son, the heir to the throne? We have a high opinion of him and will ensure his position. But His Highness should not think there is any other solution.

---British Military Authority

[IranianPride]

^ The US embassy seizure was done by a group of students, during a revolution, it was not a nationally coordinated initiative to invade another nation for territorial expansion, like Saddam's invasion of Iran.

The 1979 embassy seizure must be viewed in its historical context where Iran's democratic leader in 1953 was over-thrown in a CIA-orchestrated coup (using mullahs and the monarchy) organized out of the US embassy.

In recent times, Iran has never really been trusted by the West w/o the Shah in power. The Shah was put onto the throne in 1941 to replace his pro-Nazi father. Stalin and Churchill did the job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah_Pahlavi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

This is nonsense, Reza Shah was not pro-Nazi, he was simply trying to play the foreign powers against each other to attempt to keep Iran independent.

The Anglo-Soviet invasion was waged so that England and the Soviet Union could secure Iran's oil fields, and instate a leader who they could control and rely on during world war 2.

It had nothing to do with the west trusting or not trusting Iran, but with control of Iran. Your revisionist account of history is flawed.

Edited January 18, 2009 by IranianPride

[dub]

^ very good points.

i'll also ask again; if iran does end up with nuclear weapons, it would be in violation of the NPT. would it make it okay if they pull out of the NPT? kind of like india, pakistan and israel?

[DogOnPorch]

^ The US embassy seizure was done by a group of students, during a revolution, it was not a nationally coordinated initiative to invade another nation for territorial expansion, like Saddam's invasion of Iran.

The 1979 embassy seizure must be viewed in its historical context where Iran's democratic leader in 1953 was over-thrown in a CIA-orchestrated coup (using mullahs and the monarchy) organized out of the US embassy.

This is nonsense, Reza Shah was not pro-Nazi, he was simply trying to play the foreign powers against each other to attempt to keep Iran independent.

The Anglo-Soviet invasion was waged so that England and the Soviet Union could secure Iran's oil fields, and instate a leader who they could control and rely on during world war 2.

It had nothing to do with the west trusting or not trusting Iran, but with control of Iran. Your revisionist account of history is flawed.

Pro-Nazi enough that Stalin and Churchill got rid of him. He was cozy with the Nazis for quite some time as Germany had been a traditional trading partner with Iran. But, hey. Iran enjoyed great prosperity from the Lend-Lease act. The Americans and British built a lot of airports and highways just like here in Canada.

I do agree re: the oil fields. Oil made the tanks run. Whose tanks would you have prefered?

i'll also ask again; if iran does end up with nuclear weapons, it would be in violation of the NPT. would it make it okay if they pull out of the NPT? kind of like india, pakistan and israel?

I think Iran will go for and own nuclear weapons before long...no matter if anyone likes it or not. It's just the nature of the scorpion...as mentioned. Israel's nuclear weapons (if they exist, blah blah blah) are more a joint affair between France (and perhaps) South Africa and themselves. The big problem with nuclear weapons and Israel is that the apparent independent designs have never been tested. They really don't know if they work.

As for Iran, 1953...England, France and to a lesser extent the Americans were very pissed at you-know-who for doing you-know-what. He kicked the pitbull and got what he deserved.

----------------------------------------

Oh me. Oh my.

---Itchy: The Simpsons

[IranianPride]

Pro-Nazi enough that Stalin and Churchill got rid of him. He was cozy with the Nazis for quite some time as Germany had been a traditional trading partner with Iran. But, hey. Iran enjoyed great prosperity from the Lend-Lease act. The Americans and British built a lot of airports and highways just like here in Canada.

He was not pro-Nazi. He was simply not an enemy of the Nazis, he was neutral. To equate that with being pro-Nazi is a lie.

I do agree re: the oil fields. Oil made the tanks run. Whose tanks would you have prefered?

That's irrelevant, we're discussing Reza Shah and why they invaded. It was only because of oil and the war, and the Shah's insistence on neutrality, not for any other manufactured reason.

As for Iran, 1953...England, France and to a lesser extent the Americans were very pissed at you-know-who for doing you-know-what. He kicked the pitbull and got what he deserved.

That's another argument. You probably think Mossadeq was wrong without knowing how the original oil concessions were brought about by a weak Iranian monarchy dominated by the British.

I simply pointed out 1953 because the US Embassy was where the coup was orchestrated from.

Edited January 18, 2009 by IranianPride

[DogOnPorch]

He was not pro-Nazi. He was simply not an enemy of the Nazis, he was neutral. To equate that with being pro-Nazi is a lie.

Sez you. History disagrees.

That's irrelevant, we're discussing Reza Shah and why they invaded. It was only because of oil and the war, and the Shah's insistence on neutrality, not for any other manufactured reason.

I'd suggest you bring that up with the ghost of Stalin and not me. He did it for a reason and Churchill agreed. Enjoy the airports. I know we do out here in BC.

That's another argument. You probably think Mossadeq was wrong without knowing how the original oil concessions were brought about by a weak Iranian monarchy dominated by the British.

Don't really care, frankly. Either way...Iran _small. Russia, America, Britian, France, big. Bend over.

I simply pointed out 1953 because the US Embassy was where the coup was orchestrated from.

Agreed. The CIA in those days was akin to a James Bond movie. Let's see what 'Q' has for us...eh? Do you know which former President 'cleaned-up' the CIA? Good trivia...

-------------------------------------------

Look! Up in the sky!

It's a bird!

It's a plane!

It's...

[Wild Bill]

^ very good points.

i'll also ask again; if iran does end up with nuclear weapons, it would be in violation of the NPT. would it make it okay if they pull out of the NPT? kind of like india, pakistan and israel?

Let me see if I understand your question.

There's a nutbar down the road who has repeatedly threatened to start bashing his neighbour with a big stick. You remind him that he signed an agreement not to build sticks. So he pulls out of the agreement.

If you were his neighbour, would you sleep easier? Would you trust him?

[dub]

Let me see if I understand your question.

There's a nutbar down the road who has repeatedly threatened to start bashing his neighbour with a big stick. You remind him that he signed an agreement not to build sticks. So he pulls out of the agreement.

If you were his neighbour, would you sleep easier? Would you trust him?

a few keep calling them a nutbar but this so-called nutbar has never attacked anyone and any threat to any other nation, whether taken out of context or not, is no different than the nutbars with the stars and stripes and the country it supplies $4billion/year weapons to.. they both make regular threats of attacking and in many instances they actually do attack.

i think you've got your unstable and untrustworthy, rogue state nutbars who attack other countries mixed up.

[ironstone]

I'm not at all comfortable with the prospect of Iran having nuclear capability.It's clear to anyone that they are more interested in the military application than for providing energy.It's not politically correct to say so,but the thought of any Islamic country having nuclear weapons scares me given the state of Islam today.Look at Pakistan,perhaps the most two faced country on the planet.They give the appearance of wanting to co-operate with the West while at the same time they provide refuge to the Islamist terrorists.

As for the West not standing for anything,I would pretty much agree with that.Reckless consumption and greed just about sum up Western society these days.But I'll take that over Islamism any day of the week thank you.I just don't understand a faith,any faith,that glorifies death and violence over everything else.

I suppose whether Iran gets nuclear weapons or not depends on what the Israelis do.

[IranianPride]

I'm not at all comfortable with the prospect of Iran having nuclear capability.It's clear to anyone that they are more interested in the military application than for providing energy.

It's only clear to any one brainwashed by the ideology created by the Israel lobby and other assorted racists.

It's not politically correct to say so,but the thought of any Islamic country having nuclear weapons scares me given the state of Islam today.

Like I was saying.

[ironstone]

It is a wonderful thing to be able to freely express an opinion.Can anyone in the Middle East openly express their opinion,outside of Israel?Without fear of retribution by the government?.......I wouldn't think so,but I could be wrong.

No,I haven't been brainwashed by anyone,I form an opinion based on what I see and read.I don't think I'm a bigot either,any more than someone who would blames the "Israeli lobbyists" for all their troubles.Wanting to wipe a country off the face of the map,and repeatedly saying so,now that sounds racist/evil/demented etc to me.

I don't hate Muslims or Jews or any other identifiable group.What I do hate is the hard core types,seeking to impose their sick views on others by way of inciting hatred.I can't understand why there is so much support for these movement from all quarters.

As for Irans nuclear program,it is exceedingly naive to dismiss the comments of the Iranian leader as nothing to worry about.The free world must stand up to nutbars like this,as we naturally can't count on the dictatorships.